Sat Gus is an amazing project but way overbuilt for its expected lifetime. We designed a similar satellite that cost about $1 million all in. Unfortunately it would not have been commercially viable. Ours had to make money and the demand just wasn't there.

For an Earth observation satellite capable of 10 meters per pixel resolution it could be something as simple as this (formatting is gonna suck):

3U Frame 25000
Optical System 150000
ADCS 90000
Propulsion 25000
Solar Arrays 75000
Batteries 10000
Radio 60000
Testting 25000
Licensing 30000
Insurance 50000
Launch 180000
Total 720000

SpaceX is just about the only company with a real rideshare program. Everyone else views it as an afterthought.

I build satellites that cost less than a million and those are the elaborate ones. Launch costs are about $45k per kilo. The problem is scheduling as the capacity for launching satellites is still very much constrained.

Julian is a very capable leader at Fossa. He can make this work.

This is just nuts! In today's age of sloppy journalism, this is pretty sloppy. How did a science author, science editor, or anyone at Science not catch such a blatant mistake. I get wanting to use The Martian as a relatable element but that doesn't mean you have to get basic facts wrong.

That experiment was such a disaster. The better way to solve all of this is just move 30 minutes and then leave everything alone. Time doesn't care where we start or stop it, how we measure it, or how we calculate it. It is only human perception that seems to make a 30 minute move darn near impossible.

I've been studying the possibility of space based data centers for some time. The operative word is 'could' as in, "But they could in the future". The math just doesn't work at the moment. Even with Starship online, the support equipment at the scale needed is ten times harder to service than here on Earth. Unless there is some major breakthrough in cooling technology, this is not going to work.

Of course that wont stop VCs from throwing tons of money at companies claiming to have the answer. Sigh.

Space is hard. Very hard.

Trying to create a technology without a dark side is a fools errand. Any tool, no matter how well built or well intended can and will be used for evil. This is just human nature.

It is possible to squeeze out a lot of efficiency without resorting to this level of optimization. Just rethinking how much CPU your code uses can save a lot. Rework your code to efficient. It will get faster as a result. Do this at every level from compiler development on up.

Learning to code tightly is a difficult task. Maybe bring back some coding for machines like the Commodore 64. I remember reworking code just to save 4 bytes. I need just that much more space for the program to run. We don't need to get that detailed but even jut cutting the cruft out will really bring results.

Exactly. The Japanese Space Program (JAXA) has been working to solve this issue. Their wood based satellite frame is amazing. The durability test on orbit is the last hurdle (and that is in process now). Personally I can't wait to see the results.

Is satellite disposal a problem? It is. But there is a better way to solve the issue than eliminate capabilities or mandating further studies. Change materials. Today, most satellites use aluminum, steel, tungsten, and other exotic metals. Stop building with them. Instead use carbon fiber structures, other composites, copper, etc. It requires a shift in thinking away from just the mission an into a total lifecycle process.

It helps to think smaller too. Satellites don't need to be as massive as they are today. Smaller is better. Focus more on CubeSats as opposed to school bus sized spacecraft.

There was a very interesting movie from the 80s called "Looker" starring Albert Finney that had the exact same plot.

Why don't we just move the clocks forward 30 minutes in March 2025 and never touch this issue again?

Having worked in water infrastructure for several years, I wholeheartedly agree. Old computers, old software, and weak security are rampant. Combine that with underfunded municipalities and you get a recipe for easy disruption - and not in a good way.

Sounds like this CEO is still used to the old school way of thinking. My wife managed global teams for a major corporation for over 10 years. All from home. I think she might have met with some of her teammates every year or so, but not everyone could attend at that was fine. She continually increased the efficiency of these teams - all without stepping foot at any company facility.

Remote management is completely possible. It takes time to build the tools and keep to the work ethic needed, but with upper management's blessing and understanding, it can be quite profitable for the company as well.

Maybe Arvind Krishna should get out of the office and learn how it is really done instead of relying on reports.